Republicans Are Awfully Close to Violating the Constitution

Who cares if President Obama has 14th Amendment obligations? The critical sentence in that block of text should be read as instruction for lawmakers first, and last.

Speaker of the House John Boehner speaks at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, October 8, 2013.
National Journal
Kristin Roberts
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Kristin Roberts
Oct. 8, 2013, 2:26 p.m.

Have Re­pub­lic­ans for­got­ten that they too must abide by the Con­sti­tu­tion?

The doc­u­ment is ex­pli­cit in its in­struc­tion to Amer­ica’s fed­er­ally elec­ted of­fi­cials ““ make good on the coun­try’s debts. “The valid­ity of the pub­lic debt of the United States,” the 14th Amend­ment states, “shall not be ques­tioned.”

This is not some ar­cane bib­lic­al ref­er­ence that needs to be trans­lated from scraps of parch­ment. In fact, its pur­pose and in­tent are fairly well doc­u­mented.

The amend­ment is the product of a post-Civil War Con­gress that wanted to be sure the coun­try would not be saddled with Con­fed­er­ate debt, and that the debts of United States would be honored. Then, as now, this prom­ise writ­ten in­to the Con­sti­tu­tion offered cred­it­ors con­fid­ence that lend­ing to Amer­ica ““ in­deed, in­vest­ing in Amer­ica ““ would be safe.

“Every man who has prop­erty in the pub­lic funds will feel safer when he sees that the na­tion­al debt is with­drawn from the power of a Con­gress to re­pu­di­ate it and placed un­der the guard­i­an­ship of the Con­sti­tu­tion than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and sub­ject to the vary­ing ma­jor­it­ies which may arise in Con­gress,” ar­gued Sen. Ben­jamin Wade, a Re­pub­lic­an sup­port­er of the amend­ment.

In­deed.

Now, however, con­ser­vat­ives op­posed to a debt-ceil­ing in­crease ar­gue that the 14th Amend­ment ap­plies to old debt, not debt that will be taken out in the fu­ture. Of course, that is true. Also true, however, is that the debt Amer­ica sells today is used to make pay­ments due on already as­sumed li­ab­il­it­ies ““ the very debt pro­tec­ted by the Con­sti­tu­tion. (Amer­ic­ans by and large don’t un­der­stand this either, think­ing er­ro­neously that pro­ceeds from new debt sales are used to pay for fu­ture spend­ing.)

Old-school Re­pub­lic­ans ““ the tra­di­tion­al, “main­stream,” and pro-busi­ness ones (re­mem­ber them?) ““ dis­agree with the set now run­ning the House. Bruce Bart­lett, former of­fi­cial un­der Ron­ald Re­agan and George H.W. Bush, on Tues­day took is­sue with the GOP’s will­ful dis­reg­ard for the grav­ity of the situ­ation at hand. “What we know for cer­tain is that we will be in un­charted wa­ters,” Bart­lett wrote in The New York Times’ Eco­no­mix blog. “And giv­en that United States Treas­ury se­cur­it­ies are es­sen­tially the found­a­tion upon which the en­tire world fin­an­cial sys­tem rests, those are dan­ger­ous wa­ters in­deed. Only a fool would enter them if they could be avoided.”

So set aside the tired de­bate over wheth­er Pres­id­ent Obama should uni­lat­er­ally raise the debt lim­it. In­stead re­mem­ber that Con­gress too is bound by that amend­ment.

What hap­pens if Con­gress doesn’t act? Some opine, prob­ably cor­rectly, that the House will im­peach Obama if he moves uni­lat­er­ally on the debt ceil­ing after the House de­clines to act. But oth­ers ar­gue that if the House does noth­ing, and Obama re­fuses to step in, im­peach­ment would then in­deed be ap­pro­pri­ate.

“Obama should be im­peached if the Con­gress al­lows a de­fault and he does noth­ing,” said Sean Wil­lenz, a Prin­ceton Uni­versity his­tory pro­fess­or who has ar­gued the mer­its of 14th Amend­ment ac­tion. “The pres­id­ent has taken a sol­emn oath to pre­serve, pro­tect, and de­fend the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States. If he does not act in re­sponse to a blatant vi­ol­a­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion, then he will have vi­ol­ated his oath, and de­serve to be im­peached.”

What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
22 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×